From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones v. Schwarzenegger

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 22, 2018
No. 18-15262 (9th Cir. May. 22, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-15262

05-22-2018

EDWARD DAVID JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Former Governor of the State of CA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

California state prisoner Edward David Jones Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims arising from his exposure to Valley Fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jones's action because Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to link defendants to any constitutional violation. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged").

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jones's action without providing a third opportunity to amend the complaint because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

To the extent Jones sought to bring claims on behalf of his deceased mother, as a pro se litigant Jones lacks authority to bring such claims. See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).

Jones's "motion to augment documents" (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Jones v. Schwarzenegger

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 22, 2018
No. 18-15262 (9th Cir. May. 22, 2018)
Case details for

Jones v. Schwarzenegger

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD DAVID JONES, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 22, 2018

Citations

No. 18-15262 (9th Cir. May. 22, 2018)

Citing Cases

Yu v. DFS Grp., LP

The standard for dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim is the same under 28 U.S.C. Section…

McAllister v. Pepper

The standard for dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim is the same under 28 U.S.C. Section…